swansont

Seen a lot on shirts in Corvallis <Something that rhymes with duck> the Ducks

As my profile says, I got my PhD from Oregon State U. But that was 30 years ago.

And the heads of the various institutions were chosen for their loyalty to the president, i.e. they are not fulfilling their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution

Example of what you think is such a hidden variable? If the variable isn’t observable, how do you determine its state?

Baryonic matter makes up much of what we call “normal” matter - neutrons and protons. Dark matter is thought to (mostly) be not baryonic.

It’s known as the missing baryon problem, which is distinct from dark matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_baryon_problem

Bell’s theorem is a restriction on local hidden variables, so if you drop the local requirement you’re talking about something else. In the words of Bell, "If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem But we’re talking about entangled quantum states, where you can have superposition. “real life” is classical, and you don’t get such behavior. That’s kinda the point - QM is not secretly classical

It’s pointless to do so, arguably off-topic, and possibly invoking argument from authority, which as a fallacy, is also against the rules.

QM predates Kolmogorov’s axioms by a few years, so one might say that Kolmogorov introduced new concepts, if that were the case. But I don’t see what the issues are. You are free to discuss whatever you like with AI, but you can’t post it here, except as it complies with our rules. We don’t want to waste our time arguing with a possible hallucination. The Kochen-Specker and Bell theorems are math, used by QM. i.e. they have proofs. Do you have concrete examples of the alleged failures?

That’s an article from 2021, and the implication is that it was a possibility if Trump lost, which did not happen. The aspects of it that remain include the disinformation mill parts - politicians and media flat-out lying in order to advance a narrative to the credulous among the population.

That’s not the standard that science uses.

We have such people here - not credentialed but well-read. The best thing to do is get feedback. It also helps to not be emotionally invested in the idea, in order to be objective.

The proponents ao AI act like it’s a religion, as does the conversation that Sensei posted (“mention of a “belief” in AI) The empirical evidence says otherwise. The topic was closed owing to rules violations. The help suggestion is from treating AI like it was an actual person. Biological evolution is genetic change. The evolution of technology is not that; there are distinct differences that render the analogy incorrect. It’s not a matter of “someone decides” It’s what can be objectively demonstrated “man” refers to humans, which are animals. Objective scientific fact. You can hang onto blissful ignorance, but this is an odd place to do so.

I didn’t say it has collapsed. But it is being damaged and not repaired. To undersell the danger is dangerous and also leads to inaction. The No Kings rallies yesterday show that people aren’t walking away. But the media coverage of them is pathetic (and the parade coverage by the NYT and WaPo too fawning), and that’s one more hurdle that needs to be overcome. Awareness is still too low, and most media are being stenographers relaying a narrative vs reporters giving us facts.

Which is irrelevant at this point, since Trump has already been elected. And we have ICE, refusing to show badges and faces But by the time that happens, it will be too late to recover using existing systems. It’s like saying, “not to worry, since the knife hasn’t yet reached a vital organ” Enough norms have broken, and since Trump appears to have ~270 accomplices in congress, a majority of SCOTUS and has installed cronies at the top of all the government (with the help of his accomplices), what’s to stop him from causing more systemic failure? (that’s already been threatened)

They can post here, and get some informal peer-review. Odds are that there will be some holes in it that will be pointed out.

No, but they did not support Harris, either. Exit polls suggest a lot of votes went to Stein. Siphoning off votes helped Trump. https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-exit-poll-of-muslim-voters-reveals-surge-in-support-for-jill-stein-and-donald-trump-steep-decline-for-harris/

Moderator NoteWe’re aware of the unreliability of such sources, which is why we don’t allow them in these discussions

Moderator NoteThat’s more than enough with the insults. The delusional bits aren’t strictly against the rules, AFAICT, but IMO you should get professional help. ChatGPT isn’t a he. It’s not alive, nor intelligent. Locked, and don’t bring this up again.

Not even everyone on this site agrees. You’re making lots of sweeping statements with absolutely zero backing to them. Perhaps it’s time to stop digging and distracting.

Depends on what “geometrical base volume” and “geometrical density multiplier” mean. Volume has a definition, as does density. Density is p= m/V, so pV is mass, by definition, so it had better make sense.

You are free to decide the earth is ~10k years old. Nobody is stopping you. The determination from science is quite different. That they are incompatible is not the decision of anyone, it’s simply a fact that the numbers disagree. Science has the credibility of tremendous success on its side. You don’t control how you move? Sorry about that, but that’s not typical. Why we have pain and how we heal are things that we can investigate scientifically, and have done so extensively.

Psycho666 has been banned for re-opening a closed thread, ignoring the rules on AI content, and abusing the report post function.

A) no, that wasn’t the claim, and B) You didn’t share them, so we have only your word on that, and that’s not close to being enough.

Requiring evidence is hardly an excuse. Modern science isn’t interested because it’s not evidence, unless (as iNow implies) you come up with a proper definition of a soul. We can study neurological phenomenon, and learn about memory and thought, etc. Science doesn’t impose its view on religion. Religion is free to ignore science (and many of its adherents do so). But it seems that religion (or its adherents) wants the endorsement of science in order to leverage the credibility it has, and no, you don’t get that unless you actually follow the rules of science. Religion is free to try - nobody is stopping it - but, as with any hypothesis, success is not guaranteed. We don’t control gravity, either. That’s not the issue. It’s whether the processes follow rules we can try and determine, and they do.